Since October 7, 2023, the progressive destabilization of the regional order in the Middle East has intensified, marked by a series of Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in Syria, Lebanon, and more recently, within Iranian territory itself—including the June 13, 2025 attacks. This evolving context is fueling speculation about a possible direct strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Although these military actions have not yet targeted those installations, their growing intensity suggests a strategy aimed at preparing for such an eventuality. This article examines Israeli strategic calculations, signals sent by the United States, Iran’s internal political considerations, and the broader regional and international dynamics shaping this new phase of confrontation.
Israeli Strikes on June 13, 2025: Preliminary Steps Toward a Targeted Offensive?
Since October 2023, Israel has intensified its strikes on Iranian infrastructure linked to drone and ballistic missile production and military logistics. It has also targeted individuals deemed threats to Tel Aviv, including a July 2024 targeted attack in Tehran that killed Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. However, operational elements now point to a two-stage strategy: first, the weakening of Iran’s air defense systems, followed by the creation of a window of vulnerability to ultimately strike the country’s nuclear sites.
This logic is based, according to researcher Dr. Adel Bakawan, on Israel’s presumed acquisition of U.S.-made bunker-buster bombs capable of penetrating up to 60 meters underground. Executing such a strike would require the prior neutralization of air defense and surveillance systems, which may explain the ongoing flurry of operations.
The United States: Strategic Ultimatum or Planned Escalation?
The ambiguity of the U.S. position is reflected in recent shifts in the rhetoric of President Donald Trump. While his previous administration pursued a “maximum pressure” policy, Washington now appears to be presenting an implicit ultimatum: if Iran accepts the terms of a new agreement requiring the complete abandonment of uranium enrichment, hostilities could be suspended. Conversely, rejection may trigger a major military escalation. According to Dr. F. Gregory Gause III, a significant faction of Republicans in Congress supports Trump, making institutional opposition to a diplomatic or even military initiative unlikely.
Until recently, a key divergence remained between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. While Washington pursued Iran’s political capitulation through negotiation, the Israeli government pushed for a more maximalist goal: regime change. From this perspective, Israeli strikes aim first to dismantle Iran’s defensive military capabilities, then destroy its nuclear facilities, ultimately paving the way for a dynamic of regime change. In light of recent developments and Trump’s increasingly clear position, this divergence may soon be a thing of the past—especially if Iran refuses to negotiate with Washington this Sunday in Muscat.
Toward a Regional Conflagration?
The Israeli strikes are unfolding in a region already on edge. Before October 7, 2023, Iran maintained a vast network of allies: the Assad regime in Syria, Iraqi militias, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Palestinian groups. Since then, however, this so-called “axis of resistance” has shown visible signs of erosion. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has seen nearly 6,000 of its assets destroyed, and several key leaders eliminated, according to an analysis by Dr. Adel Bakawan. In Syria, the regime now faces significant Sunni opposition resistant to Iranian influence. In Yemen, the Houthis are under heavy U.S. bombardment and have recently signed an agreement with Washington—an unprecedented opening. In Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr, a major figure among pro-Iranian militias, has called for the country to avoid getting dragged into the conflict, while religious authorities such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani have condemned attacks on Iran without encouraging Iraqi involvement.
As a result, Iran finds itself increasingly isolated on the regional stage. Neither Russia nor China is prepared to intervene militarily to defend Tehran’s regime. Their stance remains one of promoting de-escalation, without taking an active role. This reality may pave the way for a form of international containment inspired by the Libyan model, when Muammar Gaddafi surrendered his weapons of mass destruction programs in exchange for international normalization. Such an approach would involve Iran renouncing its nuclear ambitions in return for guarantees on the regime’s survival.
International Conferences and Diverging Readings of the Conflicts
The international community is increasingly distinguishing between the war in Gaza and the Iranian file. While most actors condemn Israeli actions in Gaza, few have voiced opposition to the offensive against Iran. The upcoming international conference scheduled in New York for June 17, 2025, is expected to maintain its agenda without officially including the Iranian issue, according to Dr. Adel Bakawan.
However, Iran’s longstanding rhetoric calling to “wipe Israel off the map”[1] makes strong political support for Tehran difficult, just as the grave violations of humanitarian law in Gaza make unreserved support for Israel untenable. This dual discourse may enable Western powers to justify support for Tel Aviv on the Iranian front while maintaining a critical stance on Gaza.
Conclusion
The current situation marks a major inflection point in strategic relations between Israel, Iran, and the international powers. Although a direct strike on Iran’s nuclear sites has not yet occurred, all indications suggest active preparation is underway. With Iran increasingly isolated, it may be forced to accept a form of coerced normalization. The coming months will be decisive in determining whether this trajectory leads to a disarmament agreement—or a major military escalation in the region.
Note
[1] « Israël doit être rayé de la carte, selon Ahmadinejad », La Croix, 26 octobre 2005.
